September 11th articles

[Strelnikov]

Because it's still September 11th where I am, lets look at some of the Wikipedia articles on the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks.

The article on William "Roudy" Rodriguez was part of a see-sawing gnoming war (as a look at the article history will show) and even now it has dead links and lumpy writing. No link to Tim Cridland's year-old blog which brings up Roudy Rodriguez and his connections to James Randi and Randi's partner Deyvi Orangel Peña Arteaga (aka "Jose Luis Alvarez" and the hoax psychic "Carlos"). Rodriguez's connection to September 11th was that he was working as a janitor in the North Tower of the World Trade Center, and it was his keys that opened up the doors that let people below the floors the airliner struck out of the building and he led firefighters up to the burning parts of the building, trying to get friends off the roof restaurant. Because he claims to have felt bombs going off in the tower he became a 9/11 truther and that's why you don't hear much about him.

If you look for "Pentagon attack" you get American Airlines Flight 77, which is a kinda-sorta redundant article because the the same material is mentioned in the main "September 11 attacks" article. In fact, all the flights taken over by suicide terrorists have their own articles. Heck, they have a Cultural influence of 9/11 article. It is a massive sprawl of articles no physical encyclopedia would tolerate.

[ericbarbour]

The article on William "Roudy" Rodriguez was part of a see-sawing gnoming war (as a look at the article history will show) and even now it has dead links and lumpy writing. No link to Tim Cridland's year-old blog which brings up Roudy Rodriguez and his connections to James Randi and Randi's partner Deyvi Orangel Peña Arteaga (aka "Jose Luis Alvarez" and the hoax psychic "Carlos"). Rodriguez's connection to September 11th was that he was working as a janitor in the North Tower of the World Trade Center, and it was his keys that opened up the doors that let people below the floors the airliner struck out of the building and he led firefighters up to the burning parts of the building, trying to get friends off the roof restaurant. Because he claims to have felt bombs going off in the tower he became a 9/11 truther and that's why you don't hear much about him.

If you look for "Pentagon attack" you get American Airlines Flight 77, which is a kinda-sorta redundant article because the the same material is mentioned in the main "September 11 attacks" article. In fact, all the flights taken over by suicide terrorists have their own articles.

All of this used to be prime MONGO territory. Even today he still patrols it on (rare) occasions. The "official" author of many 9/11 articles was Katie "Aude" Filbert, MediaWiki developer and high-ranking Wikipedia "cultist". If you don't believe me, look at her Twitter.

Heck, they have a Cultural influence of 9/11 article. It is a massive sprawl of articles no physical encyclopedia would tolerate.

Created in 2015 by one of Wikipedia's looniest loonies, Desmond "The Transhumanist" Collingsworth. He's been creating "Outline of" and "Index of" articles for hundreds of subjects--and doing a shit job as well. But even HE realizes and admits that WP has serious weaknesses.

[Strelnikov]

All of this used to be prime MONGO territory. Even today he still patrols it on (rare) occasions.

I would have guessed he would have been there, yelling at people who didn't follow the 9/11 Report to the letter, accusing people of being 9/11 Truthers and whatnot.

Heck, they have a Cultural influence of 9/11 article. It is a massive sprawl of articles no physical encyclopedia would tolerate. -Strelnikov

Created in 2015 by one of Wikipedia's looniest loonies, Desmond "The Transhumanist" Collingsworth. He's been creating "Outline of" and "Index of" articles for hundreds of subjects--and doing a shit job as well. But even HE realizes and admits that WP has serious weaknesses.

My response is that even though it should be obvious to everyone that Wikipedia has huge weaknesses 16 years later, it's nice to hear that one of the early editors knows that The Project is not up to snuff.

***

As long as I'm here, let's talk about the WP article on Lobster magazine. The magazine has been around since 1983, and is focused on parapolitics (spying, assassinations, corporate influence on government, counterintelligence, government/corporate monitoring of the population, etc.) mixed in with an occasional interest in fringy topics like UFOs (which the intelligence branches of all governments have been interested in), sound weapons, and other "out there" topics (including a love for the JFK assassination, brought up whenever new things surface or new books on the topic are published, because Lobster does book reviews.) When it began it was Stephen Dorril and Robin Ramsey, but for the last 20 years it's been Ramsey at it alone, editing/publishing biannual issues, which have been available online (beginning with issue 58) since 2009 as pdf files.

I bring up Lobster because the Wikipedia article on it is stuck in the year 2000, no mention at all of the writing on the topic of 9/11, the rise of the conspiracy culture around the attacks, the repercussions of the attacks in American foreign policy, etc. Doing a simple search of the numbers "9" and "11" turns up a number of hits going back to 2005, and if you attached the word "attacks", the hits go back to issue 41, which was the winter issue in 2001. When you have no mention of this article from 2015, Wikipedia is asleep at the wheel. It is nice that they mention the '80s kerfuffle over Lobster publishing a "Who's Who of the British Secret State" listing all the MI5/MI6 wonks/agents/office staff they could dig out of research from public libraries (complete with capsule bios) in 1989-91 and how Sir Ray Whitney (Conservative MP for Wycombe) denounced the magazine in the House of Commons by name a few days before Christmas 1988 because Ramsey and Dorril had announced what they were doing before they did it, but none of that excuses Wikipedia from being badly out-of-date on the subject.